Glass Message Board
Glass Discussion & Research. NO IDENTIFICATION REQUESTS here please. => British & Irish Glass => Topic started by: Gilead on March 29, 2008, 07:53:28 PM
-
Hi All
I think this is a Bagley pressed fruit bowl Uranium, it as a reg No inside 849118.
Am i right in thinking that this is also known as carnival of Bagley? any idea please as to the year this might have been made, picked it up today as i was passing the charity shop on my way to Sainsburys, all ways on the look out, only £0.99p i really like this sort of glass. Another one for the box,
-
:hiclp: Well according to the Bagley book, the registration date for Carnival was Nov 1946, but Bagley supposedly had all their uranium glass confiscated in 1946. There's an awful lot of uranium Carnival about, with and without registered numbers stamped on, so there's something adrift somewhere :huh: :huh:
What size is it? There's a large fruit bowl and matching smaller ones. There's also a sugar bowl but that has steeper sides
-
I've a full fruit set in Bagley Carnival uranium green as well - large bowl and 6 small ones, no reg no on any of mine at all. Steve well done in ID'ing it. :) :clap:
-
Thank You Anne. Phew!!! ;D
Christine the size of the bowl is 2.5ins high to the rim and 8.5ins in diameter, and gave it the UV light test came up trumps :clap: found this as well regarding the UV torch,( http://www.anythingradioactive.com/marbles.htm ) cheers
Steve
-
Christine, I'm sure I recall someone (Adam, Bernard or Glen perhaps?) explaining that the registration process took quite a while to go through, so whilst the design is dated Nov 1946 the items could be made prior to that. In support of this, Bernard said in a discussion about the Jobling rose bowls (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,2565.msg22975.html#msg22975) that some of the early pieces have reg applied for rather than the rd no so those would pre-date the application too. By the way, do we have a definite date for the confiscation of Bagley's uranium stock? Angela's book only says "around 1946".
-
... according to the Bagley book ... Bagley supposedly had all their uranium glass confiscated in 1946. ...
... do we have a definite date for the confiscation of Bagley's uranium stock? Angela's book only says "around 1946".
Christine & Anne — I've been through Angela's book and I can't find this reference. Are we looking at the same book? Mine is the First Paperback Edition, is dated 2004, and has ISBN 0-473-09836-9.
Anyway, I've been through the bibliography and acknowledgements, and unless Angela and the Parsons obtained this information from The Pottery Gazette or somewhere else, the obvious source is Richard van Riel's comprehensive article on the Bagley glassworks in British Glass between the Wars (BGbtW), published 1987. Richard is curator of Pontefract Museum, which houses, in a room dedicated to Knottingley glass (includes bottle works), the comprehensive Bagley reference collection, including the extensive collection built up by the Parsons, and both printed and written paper archives.
So what does Richard say? He doesn't say that "all" Bagley's stock of Uranium ore was confiscated, but that "some three tons of uranium rich material" was. So we don't know how much escaped. Also Richard does not date this event to "around 1946", but to the "end of the war". I doubt whether the Government would have been able to confiscate anything after VJ Day (15 August 1945), especially in Yorkshire! This is the only reference I've found to the confiscation of uranium ore from our glassworks, so we don't know how reliable Richard's dates are. However the first critical mass calculation was done in Britain in 1940, and the MAUD committee produced their report here on unanium enrichment in 1941, so I am reasonably confident that the confiscation must have taken place some time between 1940 and the end of the war.
... I recall someone (Adam, Bernard or Glen perhaps?) explaining that the registration process took quite a while to go through, so whilst the design is dated Nov 1946 the items could be made prior to that. ...
Anne — The only example I knew of a serious timelag between the development of a pattern and its design registration has now been shown to be an error, see here (http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,18971.0.html).
So, in summary, I see no reason to suppose that the launch of Bagley's Carnival pattern was other than November 1946.
And please, ladies, would you buy or borrow a copy of BGbtW. It is invaluable — one of my three copy references (one for my mobile book box, one for my bookshelf, and a third for when the first wears out).
Bernard C. 8)
-
Bernard, my copy of Bowey and Parsons is the second paperback edition, dated 2004, same ISBN as you give though. The ref to uranium stock is the very last sentence on page 100 at the end of the Fruit Dishes and Sets section.
I don't know how much the timescales for registering designs has changed since 1946, but it appears that an application can take up to 5 months to process now, and up to a year's grace to test the market is permitted, so the implication there is that an item could be made for up to around 18 months before a design is registered.
BTW thanks for the suggestion about the other Bagley book, I'll track a copy down. :)
-
Bernard, my copy of Bowey and Parsons is the second paperback edition, dated 2004, same ISBN as you give though. The ref to uranium stock is the very last sentence on page 100 at the end of the Fruit Dishes and Sets section. ...
Mine has slightly different page numbering and is missing that uranium text.
... I don't know how much the timescales for registering designs has changed since 1946, but it appears that an application can take up to 5 months to process now, and up to a year's grace to test the market is permitted, so the implication there is that an item could be made for up to around 18 months before a design is registered. ...
I suspect processing a registration application was much faster then — no computers to slow things down, and a much more trusting business atmosphere, where you still didn't always need a written contract. What a sad and inefficient world we live in today.
... BTW thanks for the suggestion about the other Bagley book, I'll track a copy down.
It's not specifically a Bagley book, but on all British glass. Author — Roger Dodsworth. You might find it listed under exhibition catalogues. The British Library has at least one lending copy.
Bernard C. 8)
-
I have the second paperback edition and on page 20 "After the war, about 1946, the government confiscated Bagley's stocks of uranium enriched glass ingredients (several tons)." There is also the mention on page 100.
Steve you have the large fruit bowl
-
Christine — That text is not in my first edition. I still think that confiscation would have been unlikely after the war — compulsory purchase perhaps. I hope Angela sees this and clears up this little difficulty. Anyway, in relation to Steve's bowl, the Government obviously didn't take all Bagley's stock of uranium ore.
Bernard C. 8)
-
The original application documents are the only way to clarify as they can also indicate first use. I have some documents with a first use 40 years before the first registration application. Often designs were registered in multiple countries and it is very common to find first use dates on Canadian and South African documents.
In other words all the date tells you is about the registration process and not the date the design was introduced.
-
Frank's thoughts explain the large quantities of uranium Carnival without a reg mark but not the large quantities with a reg mark - the mystery of the confiscated uranium remains
-
Hmmm doesn't it just, Christine. I wonder if Adam Dodds may be able to add any more info for us?
-
... In other words all the date tells you is about the registration process and not the date the design was introduced.
What a misleading comment.
It is obvious from the context that we are discussing British designs (or plagiarised American designs like the Grace Darling boat, which are effectively the same), manufactured and registered in Britain to protect them in the home market. We are not discussing international protection, international manufacture, nor are we considering oddities like Davidson's reregistration of old patterns to keep them protected indefinitely. We knew of just one example of a lengthy time period (just over a decade) between design and registration in this context up to February 2008, when Sid, with help from James, Roy and myself showed that it was a previously unrecognised error by Simon Cottle in his book on Sowerby, incidentally demonstrating the importance of this message board in providing an international forum. As far as I am aware no other examples are known.
As a mathematician and statistician I am 99.9% confident that in this context designs were registered as part of the development process — that there was no significant delay between design and registration. This is as close to certainty as you are ever likely to get with the imprecise world of history. There are scenarios where a delay would have been reasonable, such as seasonal goods, event souvenirs, and a forthcoming trade catalogue, where you would expect a delay in registration so as not to acquaint competitors with new designs until the last possible moment, but even in such circumstances I have not found examples.
I hope examples will emerge. It will be interesting to examine them and consider possible explanations and their implications. However, a handful of exceptions will have no effect on the generally established rule, that, in this wholly British context, there is a strong, significant, and tight correlation between the dates of design and registration.
Bernard C. 8)
-
I've got 14 individual fruit dishes in this pattern /colour, plus the large berry bowl and large sugar (both with the Reg No) and the cream jug.
I also have a celery vase in the same pattern with a Reg No. Now here's the puzzle.....the moulded RD No is shown as 84118. Looks like they missed out a digit on my celery!
Glen
-
Well that means you're missing the butter dish, the cheese dish and the tea/under plates wot I have got (OK only one tea plate, I sold three) ;D and the biscuit barrel wot I haven't got (well only in non-U green and missing a lid)
-
Christine, I'm sure I recall someone (Adam, Bernard or Glen perhaps?) explaining that the registration process took quite a while to go through, so whilst the design is dated Nov 1946 the items could be made prior to that.
That would assume they pre-empted the design application process, surely? If the design was not registered until 1946, they could not have stamped it with anything until approval was received. I suppose that any items made prior would be unmarked.
I doubt if delays would have been more than a year in any event, but could be wrong as it was just post-war and a busy time!
-
Christine — That text is not in my first edition. I still think that confiscation would have been unlikely after the war — compulsory purchase perhaps.
Personally, I always though all uranium stocks were confiscated/purchased (or whatever) earlier than this. I have explained to Bernard before, that I have seen this mentioned somewhere, but darned if I can remember where... :-\ Probably a Pottery Gazette - I'll have to trawl through the wartime ones again, unless I noted it down.
-
Anne - You ask if I can help re confiscated uranium. I'd never heard that story, although obviously uranium would be much in demand around that time. I have never myself used uranium. I mentioned somewhere before that I inherited maybe a pound or so of uranium oxide at Davidsons in 1956 but we never played with it because even if we had developed something wonderful we couldn't have gone into production. It was still there when I left - it was in a loft so maybe the Government hadn't found it!
Adam D.
-
Adam, thanks for picking this up and responding. It was just a thought that you may have picked something up about in the grapevine at some time. :)
As the info came from Angela's Bagley book it'd probably be a good idea for us to ask her where she found the info then.
BTW Adam, I wonder if your uranium oxide was ever noticed again in the loft? >:D
-
That would assume they pre-empted the design application process, surely? If the design was not registered until 1946, they could not have stamped it with anything until approval was received. I suppose that any items made prior would be unmarked.
I doubt if delays would have been more than a year in any event, but could be wrong as it was just post-war and a busy time!
True David, but there's a lot around without the RD no as well, as Christine pointed out. My set isn't RD marked.
-
Must play havoc with the Sky dish ;)